As you remember, the court gave you a general instruction before the presentation of any evidence in this case. The court will not repeat that instruction at this time. However, that instruction and the additional instructions, to be given to you now, constitute the law of this case and each such instruction is equally binding upon you. You should consider each instruction in light of and in harmony with the other instructions, and you should apply the instructions as a whole to the evidence. The order in which the instructions are given is no indication of their relative importance. All of the instructions are in writing and will be available to you in the jury room.
a single claim for breach of ~ contract related to an alleged 1"]rch~3c agreement for a building located at 1600 N.E. Coronado Drive, Blue Springs, Missouri. I·Ie claimed breach of contract damage in the amount of $450 minion. Plaintiff also alleged he was asserting this claim "in his role as a statutory trustee for the dissolved Missouri Corporation Medical Supply Chain, Inc~1~1
Dress appropriately for Court and treatment sessions. You will be expected to wear a shirt or blouse, pants, dress, or skirt of a reasonable length. NO SHORTS OR BARE SHOULDERS (MEN OR WOMEN.) Clothing bearing drug or alcohol related themes or promoting or advertising alcohol or drug use or violence is considered inappropriate. Men should remove hats or other head/hair covering before entering the Court. Sunglasses are not to be worn inside Court or treatment center unless medically approved and verified. Speak with your case manager or treatment contacts if you need assistance with clothing.
On June 23, 2010, the trial court issued its “FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENT.” The trial court concluded Mr. Parker told Mrs. Lagermann “that the coverage [Appellant] offered would be the widest coverage there was and it would cover ‘everything’ from ‘wind and rain to civil unrest;’” that neither the Illustration nor the Application included any information about the level of coverage provided under the policy; that Mr. Parker’s recitation of the conversation he had with Mrs. Lagermann was not credible; that Appellant “failed to forward a copy of the [Information P]age and the policy” to Respondents such that they had no knowledge as to what perils were covered by their policy; and that Respondents were not informed about the existence of different levels of coverage until after they filed their claim for damage to the garage. As a result, the trial court concluded, inter alia , that
State whether defendant or his/her representatives was/were convicted of or pled guilty to any violation arising out of the collision in question, and if so, state the charges for which defendant or his/her representatives was/were convicted or pled guilty, the name and address of the court where same occurred, the date of final disposition, and the case number for plea or conviction.
Representative of the estate of Sandra S. Lobb , deceased v. Diane Koken, individually and as Insurance Commissioner, Dr. Calvin B. Johnson, individually, and as Secretary of Health, and Independence Blue Cross, Civil Action: 05-cv-02536, United States District Court for the
A. Economic Independence of Women Workers In Indonesia In this era of globalization the independence of women is urgently needed. Women often get stereotyped (labeling) as konco wingking, was shifted to become an independent woman. Eco Setyowati Abbas Rochim as activists set of young entrepreneurs (HIPMI) Indonesia said that with advances in science and technology are no limit encourages women in particular, to be more creative, the existence of gender equality which had long championed, will certainly have an effect on businesses that do women the public area. First, Networking. Women tend to be more easily in building relationships (networking), particularly in partnering in the business world.
Wolfe v. Vauhgn, 177 Tenn. 678, 152 S.W.2d 631, 634 (Tenn. 1941) (emphasis supplied). Well reasoned case law in other jurisdictions also supports the conclusion that in certain cases the medical expenses claim is not time-barred and may be considered the child’s claim where, for example, the parent waives the claim in favor of the child (or as here sues for these expenses on the child’s behalf) or where the parents are simply unable to pay for the expenses (a fact present here given that the mother does not work (because she can’t afford care, even respite care for her handicapped child who cannot walk or speak) and where Ms. Spain lives on a meager $705 per month. Brenda Spain deposition, p. 60. For example, in Garay v. Overhottzer, 631 A.2d 429 (Md. 1993) the Maryland Supreme Court relied upon Tennessee precedent (Gardner v. Flowers, 529 S.W.2d 708 (Tenn.1975)) to hold that if the parents were unable to pay for necessary medical expenses, the child could recover them and that this claim was tolled from the expiration of limitations by the child’s minority. Similarly, the Superior Court of Maine held that if the facts established that the child’s parents could not pay for necessary medical expenses then an otherwise time- barred claim for medical expenses could be pursued in a products liability case as a proper claim of the child. Woodbury v. Hammond Lumber, slip op., No. Civ. A. CV-02-03-034, 2003 WL 1665251 (Maine Super. Ct., March 10, 2003).
(i) The Trustee shall cause to be prepared and filed with this Court, as soon as available, and in any event within one hundred and twenty (120) days following the end of each fiscal year, an annual report containing financial statements of the Trust (including, without limitation, a balance sheet of the Trust as of the end of such fiscal year and a statement of operations for such fiscal year) audited by a firm of independent certified public accountants selected by the Trustee and accompanied by an opinion of such firm as to the fairness of the financial statements' presentation of the cash and investments available for the payment of claims and as to the conformity of the financial statements with generally accepted accounting principles.
Plaintiff next alleges that Defendant was negligent for failing to initially seek punitive damages under 11 USC 303(i) rather than under 11 USC 105(a). The original motion for punitive damages was filed in 2006. Plaintiff contends that Defendant should have moved to amend the motion to add section 303(i) to the motion. Plaintiff further claims that the second award of punitive damages would have been affirmed had Defendant added section 303(i) to the initial motion. The Court disagrees. Section 303(i)(2)(B) provides only for punitive damages upon dismissal of an involuntary bankruptcy which had been filed in bad faith. The section cannot later be the basis for a post-dismissal motion for punitive damages. In re John Richards Homes Building Co, 552 Fed Appx 401 (CA 6, 2013).
Perhaps Choi and Gulati are counting something as important just because it is countable. It is harder to compare quantitatively the qualifications of an Attorney General and a Senator than it is to compare quantitatively two lower federal court judges. Even looking at the pool of state high court judges (who have a hint of the Su- preme Court’s power in that they have the final say on state law) may have been too difficult, since state courts do not cite each other in any uniform way.